In this case, as the trial court noted, the center door clearly was the
entryway to two upstairs units. It was marked by two address numbers, it was unlocked,
and there was no doorbell, intercom, or buzzer for members of the public to use to let the
upstairs residents know that they wished to gain entry. The stairway itself, leading up to a
landing that was the location of the doors to each of the two upper units, confirms its
function as a common entry for both of the upstairs units. The residents of the upstairs
units neither posted signs nor took any other action to show that they intended to exclude
visitors from the stairway. The trial court did not err in concluding that Goldschmidt had
implied consent to walk through the center door on the porch.

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in concluding that he had
abandoned any constitutionally protected interest in the brown paper bag that he left in
the stairway. The state argues that defendant indicated an intention to relinquish any
interest in the bag by voluntarily leaving it in a public place where members of the public
would have been free to inspect it.

The determination whether a defendant has relinquished a constitutionally
protected interest in an item of personal property involves both factual and legal issues
that we review in the same manner that we review other search and seizure questions
arising under Article I, section 9. State v. Cook

In that regard, the cases suggest that several factors are pertinent: (1)
whether a defendant separated himself or herself from the property as a result of police
instruction, Cook, 332 Or at 609, or illegal police conduct, State v. Morton, 326 Or 466,
470, 953 P2d 374 (1998); (2) whether a defendant left the property on private, as opposed
to public, property, State v. Kendall, 173 Or App 487, 491, 24 P3d 914 (2001); and (3)
whether a defendant made any attempt to hide the property or in any other way manifest
an intention to the police that he or she was attempting to maintain control over it, State v.
Dickson, 173 Or App 567, 575, 24 P3d 909, rev den, 332 Or 559 (2001).

In this case, the police officers lawfully approached the center outside door
as defendant walked outside. Seeing the officers, defendant spontaneously turned and left
the brown paper bag behind him. He did not relinquish possession of the bag in response
to any instruction from, or illegal conduct on the part of, the police. It is undisputed that
he did so entirely on his own, without any prompting. Defendant also left the bag in a
public entryway of a multi-unit dwelling, where members of the public were likely to see
it and likely to inspect its contents. Finally, defendant made no attempt to hide the bag.
He left it in plain sight of anyone who walked in the center door.

Thus, the facts of this case recall those in Dickson, in which the defendant
dropped a backpack behind him in plain sight as officers arrived to execute a search
warrant. He argued that, although he had relinquished possession of the backpack, he
never intended to abandon all interest in it. We rejected the argument and concluded that
the defendant had abandoned any constitutionally protected interest in the backpack. We
explained that the defendant had failed to manifest to the officers any indication that he
was maintaining control over the backpack, such as hiding it. To the contrary, we
explained, the defendant had

"dropped the backpack in plain sight of officers in close pursuit of him.
That circumstance made it objectively likely that others would inspect the
backpack; conversely, it also indicates that [the] defendant did not intend to
reclaim the backpack."

Id. at 575. In addition, we noted, even assuming that the defendant had dropped the
backpack in response to the arrival of the police, the fact remained that the police had
arrived to execute a valid search warrant and that the defendant did not relinquish
possession of the article in response to any unlawful police conduct. Id.

Defendant insists that in this case the "care" with which he placed the bag in
the handrail demonstrates an intent to retain possession. However much care defendant
took to wad up the paper bag, though, the fact remains that he left it in a place that was
visible and accessible to any member of the public who entered the doorway. As in
Dickson, defendant in this case made no attempt to hide the property from public view or
give any indication that the wadded brown paper bag was anything other than discarded
trash. The trial court did not err in concluding that defendant had abandoned any
constitutionally protected interest in the bag.